Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Environmental Organization Endorses Edwards

DOVER, N. H. Oct. 14 – John Edwards won support Sunday for his environment plan when the organization, Friends of the Earth Action, endorsed his candidacy for the Democratic nomination.

The organization’s president, Brent Blackwelder, said that the group liked Mr. Edwards’ proposals to fight global warming, and his opposition to nuclear power plants and the influence of lobbyists on policy.

He said other Democratic candidates had outstanding records on the environment, but when it came to major issues like nuclear power, Mr. Edwards had the most comprehensive plan.

“Edwards is razor sharp and clear: we don’t want to go the route of nuclear power plants,” said Mr. Blackwelder, whereas Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to explore the nuclear option.

“We intend to run an independent campaign to educate the voters,” Mr. Blackwelder said. The canvassing, advertisements and seminars will take place mostly in New Hampshire, where the nuclear issue has resonance because of the nuclear power plant at Seabrook, as well as in other states.

“It is a nationwide endorsement,” he said. “In South Carolina there are important issues we want to talk about there, including the Bush plan to dump radioactive waste at the Savannah river site. We think the same message will resonate.”

Mr. Blackwelder said that the group took into consideration polls saying Democrats rank global warming as one of the top three issues of concern to them.

Mr. Edwards, accepting the endorsement, said: “I am opposed to the building of new nuclear power plants, which is different from the position taken by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.”

“I do believe that Americans will have to sacrifice,” he later said. “And that means we are going to have to be willing to conserve.”

His environment initiatives include capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010, and reducing it by 20 percent by 2020 and then 80 percent by 2050. In addition, his proposals include investing in renewable energy sources, and an energy fund that auctions off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies.

Mr. Blackwelder made the announcement at a gathering for Mr. Edwards at a private lakeside home here set among pine trees. The event had the air of a neighborhood picnic. People brought dogs and children and helped themselves to snacks set up on the lawn. About one hundred people settled on folding chairs in a circle around Mr. Edwards as he stood to speak and answer their questions.

“I am reminded out here in this beautiful setting on a Sunday in New Hampshire what our moral responsibility is to protect the world, to protect the earth on behalf of our selves, our children and our grandchildren.”

The opinion on the use of nuclear power plant for energy is shifting because it is clean and inexpensive. Coal should be phased out and the other alternatives to energy are not as efficient as nuclear power.

At least, nuclear power should get the attention it deserves and its use should be seriously considered.

If this is the major reason why Edwards is getting this environmental endorsement, it is not so impressive.

Bravo for Mr. Edwards. This is a huge endorsement for his campaign. Thanks to the Gore awareness on global warming, Americans are seeing the need to veer away from Nuclear power plants. There is no where to put the nuclear waste materials. The big Yuca Mt. hole out in Nevada proves people don’t want it in their back yards. This stuff lasts for thousands of years and it has to be transported through populated areas. We have already seen the results of a meltdown. Generations of Russian children born after the meltdown now have tyroid cancer as a result. Factor in what the terrorists want to do, and it becomes a no brainer. A Gore endorsement of the Edwards campaign should follow.

Everyone can focus on what they like but in the meantime the Bush administration are pulling the wool over every bodies eyes by putting “Interim’s” into all the top jobs at state Dept levels, all guaranteed “Yes Men” who will do Bush and Cheney’s bidding without question.

This way they completely avoid any bothersome confirmation hearings and continue on destroying the country from within.

Every little bit helps, I suppose, but Hillary’s
New Hampshire lead over Edwards is almost 40 points. And good-natured though the Friends of the Earth are, the Waterville Valley-White Mountain National Forest support remains unmoved.

Mr Edwards is a breath of fresh air. He is reality based—not hot air like so many we hear. His life experiences are nitty, gritty down to earth—we have had enough of the spoiled rich men’s sons. Look where it has got us.

In response to Cliff Jones, there are many modern advances which Chernobyl did not benefit from that make nuclear power both safe and efficient. Some improvements include special coatings on nuclear pellets to lower heat exchange temperatures while other developments include the pebble-bed reactor which is touted to be near meltdown-proof. That doesn’t include all of the modern system management computers/programs as well as the higher U.S. safety requirements and inspections which the Russians lacked.

Congratulations to John Edwards! He has shown leadership on all the issues, and was the first to develop an aggressive and comprehensive global warming plan that the other candidates used as a template. To quote Grist.org, “In his current campaign for president, Edwards has been more aggressive on the issue of climate change than other Democratic candidates, who’ve ended up following his lead.”

Edwards is a courageous straight-shooter who lays his plans on the table for all to see–no equivocation or pandering here–only true leadership.

Nuclear power is clean, efficiant and cheap. The only issue is waste and someday we will have the technology to safely reliably and cheaply jettison it into space, but that’s a ways off. I think nuclear is viable to reduce dependence on coal. Edwards does have the best energy policy of any candidate. Obama doesn’t even metion coal in his policy, sad considering that is where most of our and China’s power comes from. Edwards also wants to invest in cleaner coal, the only candidate to say so, which is an absolute necessity.

I agree with looking seriously at nuclear power as a base for our energy needs. There haven’t been any serious accidents since Chernobyl and the 4,000 deaths attributed from that sad event pale compared to the 4,000 deaths annually in China in Coal disasters & 100 each year here at home in the U.S. No, these aren’t meltdowns but deaths in mines are just as real to miners’ families.

While I don’t endorse Hillary or Obama just because they got this question right, Edwards can’t see the forest for the trees. The nuclear fear should be put to rest and replaced by level headed consideration.

I think Richardson’s background in energy makes him the best overall choice for many reasons but as head of DOE he learned to ask the right questions. His experience would serve us well.

Good for Edward. I am not an enviromental voters and will not be in 20 years from now. All i know is this, there is no silver bullet to our energy crisis. Every partisan group can say all they want and endorse who they like.

The bottom line is simple, vote for what you care about. As for me, here are what i care about.

1. Iraq
2. Foreign Policy that make sense
3. Economy and Jobs
4. Urban and Rural Revitalization
5. Better high school education in Urban and Rural

To echo comments above, it’s nice to say nuclear has become safer, but nobody wants it near themselves…. i think there are other methods to satisfy our want and need of electric and power.

Congrats to Mr. Edwards on this endorsement. I hope it brings a new round of endorsements to him, as people see that HIllary is part sham/part political shaman and altho’ i like Obama, many of us are uncertain about how tough he is and if he’s ready.

Edwards may seem contradictory on his house issue and hedge fund ( he corrected hedge fund – the following Day), but he is not on the major issue of the day.

I applaud John Edwards’ views on nuclear power. Until a reliable solution is found to the disposal of radioactive waste it should not be considered as an alternative energy source. Plans to simply bury the fuel or send it into space are a crime against our future generations. It is our responsibility to deal with the consequences of our consumption today and it is ethically wrong to put these costs on our kids. Although this is not to say nuclear will never be an option (there are interesting research projects involving transmutation and reuse), the technology does not yet exist for it to be an option today. Instead, our focus and the majority of our resources should go into expanding those alternatives we already know to be safer and cleaner (i.e. wind and solar), as well as into the most economical and safest alternative of all- conservation.

To: M sheridan above, besides nevada, I live half the time in France where nuclear supplies 80% of our power. That coupled with the many huge wind turbines I see almost every day make me feel proud to be part of a progressive community there. I would feel equally willing to have a nuclear plant near my home in Nevada. So please don’t make up story’s about other people’s opinions. In Boulder City, where I live in nevada, we have hydro power and a growing array of solar. To add nuclear would suit me fine. We could be carbon neutral in that one important area.

Mr. Edwards’ clinging to coal is laudable but misguided if it precludes other options which must be part of the mix. We don’t need a president with such a shortsighted policy.

Mr. Edwards is the worst kind of pandering politician. He will say anything to get elected. His positions consistently fly in the face of facts and reality. He made his money chasing ambulances and now has come to believe the rhetoric and emotional vitriol he spewed to win huge lawsuits against insurance companies. No, Mr. Edwards, corporations are not all evil. They provide jobs and generally are led by people with integrity. I would rather manage 70,000 tons of spent fuel with a technically defensible engineered solution (aka Yucca Mountain) than to continue to pour “billions” of tons of greenhouse gases freely into the environment. Our national survival is at stake and we need a leader who will challenge us to achieve energy self sufficiency at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not one who panders to special interests. We need a John Kennedy-like vision for our future. Mr. Edwards, you are no John Kennedy.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…